Campion v. Old Republic Home Protection Co.
272 F.R.D. 517
S.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiff Campion moved for class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23; Old Republic opposed and moved to strike an expert report.
- Plaintiff alleges uniform misrepresentations and a system designed to deny or shift costs of claims under home warranty plans, covering claims from roughly March 6, 2003 to present.
- Plaintiff purchased a plan in 2007; he made a 2008 warranty claim denied on grounds of improper installation; he paid a $50 service fee and incurred replacement costs.
- The putative class would include hundreds of thousands of customers with varying claim outcomes and plan purchases, including third-party purchases on behalf of class members.
- Court conducts rigorous Rule 23 analysis; finds standing and Rule 23(a) elements satisfied but fails to show predominance or superiority under Rule 23(b)(3) or injunctive/declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2); class certification denied.
- Defendant’s motion to strike the Rodio report is denied without prejudice for potential renewal at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the class satisfies Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority. | Common issues predominate due to uniform contract and practices; class treatment superior for efficiency. | Individualized claim handling and damages predominate; class action not superior. | Predominance and superiority not satisfied; class certification denied under 23(b)(3). |
| Whether standing defeats class certification. | Standing for the class is satisfied because named plaintiff has standing and absent class members rely on same theory. | Overbreadth of class definition risks lacking standing among unnamed members; requires Rule 23(b) analysis. | Standing requirement met for purposes of this certification decision. |
| Whether common questions predominate for contract-based and UCL/CLRA claims. | Uniform misrepresentations and system-wide denial practices create common liability questions. | Individualized proof of each class member’s claim handling and damages is required; no class-wide predominance. | Individualized inquiries would predominate; contract, UCL, CLRA, and related claims not suitable for class treatment. |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(2) relief is appropriate given monetary restitution sought. | Monetary restitution and injunctive relief may be certified under 23(b)(2) as related to ongoing practices. | Monetary relief predominates and injunctive/declaratory relief would be subsumed by liability; 23(b)(2) inappropriate. | Not appropriate under 23(b)(2) due to predominance of monetary restitution and individualized remedies. |
| Whether the court should strike the proposed expert report. | Rodio provides relevant analysis on contractors’ profitability influencing behavior. | Rodio lacks qualifications and offers unreliable, speculative conclusions. | Motion to strike denied without prejudice; Daubert issues may be revisited at trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010) (rigorous Rule 23 analysis; class certification requires actual predominance)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (Supreme Court, 1975) (standing inquiry limits to jurisdictional requirement; not merits)
- Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 97 Cal.App.4th 1282 (Cal. App. 2002) (standing/predominance considerations in class context)
- Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 966 (Cal. App. 2009) (standing and predominance; reliance considerations in UCL/CLRA context)
- Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (standing for UCL class actions; reliance specifics vary by claim)